Rwandan Genocide Overview

A period of mass killings in Rwanda, where approximately 1 million people were killed in 100 days.

The Rwandan genocide was instigated in part due to the division and propaganda used to incite hatred between ethnic groups.

Pre-existing societal structures and classifications, not inherent animosity, influenced the perception of ethnic differences in Rwanda.

The conflict was not a consequence of pre-existing hatred, but rather a consequence of imposed categorisation by colonial powers.

Exiled Tutsis' war against the Hutu regime prompted the regime to mobilize the Hutu population to fight against the Tutsis.

The Rwandan government spread anti-Tutsi propaganda, dehumanizing them and inciting violence.

The assassination of Rwandan President Habyarimana sparked a widespread massacre of the Tutsi population.

The Rwandan government actively mobilized Hutu citizens to carry out the genocide.

The international community's delayed response to the genocide contributed to the scale of the tragedy.

1 Million Rwandan people killed in just 100 days.

Political motivations can influence ethnic tensions, resulting in conflict when leaders utilize ethnic divisions for personal or group benefit.

The size of ethnic groups impacts the likelihood of conflict. Smaller groups may be less politically mobilized, leading to fewer conflicts compared to larger groups.

Autocratic regimes often fear empowered women, viewing them as a threat to their power, potentially leading to oppression or restrictions.

A theory arguing that differences among civilizations can lead to conflict.

Economic hardship and inequality are often key factors in causing violence, contributing to frustration, anger and social unrest.

Past injustices and unresolved conflicts create a sense of victimhood and resentment, potentially fueling violence in the present.

Belgian colonial policies, like the implementation of an ID card system, disproportionately impacted ethnic groups and played a role in creating conflict conditions for later.

In some contexts, despite the presence of ethnic or other divisions, political activity can be based on common interests, reducing conflict.

Not all cultural differences necessarily lead to political conflicts; only some specific differences may be politically relevant or create conflict.

Posner raises a question about why some cultural differences are relevant in politics, while others are not; addressing reasons regarding a political advantage that may be connected to specific cultural features.

Sen argues that simplistic explanations like "clash of civilizations" or "economic deprivation" are insufficient to explain ethnic conflicts. True violence stems from a complex interplay of historical grievances, a sense of injustice, and instigation.

This theory posits that cultural divisions within and between countries lead to increased conflicts. Ethnic differences, according to this approach, can cause violence.

These arguments point towards poverty and inequality as the primary causes of violence.

Colonial powers often used strategies to create divisions between ethnic groups, creating conflicts between groups.

Ethnic differences don't automatically lead to violence. They only turn into violent conflict in combination with economic deprivation,historical grievances, and instigation.

High poverty, inequality, and ethnic differences in Kolkata, but minimal violence. This exemplifies the complex nature needed to understand violent conflict.

An individual or group that motivates and mobilizes a group to attack another, often using pre-existing grievances.

A movement in South Korea that emphasizes the need for gender equality, ignited in part by a 2016 murder of a female.